CHRISTIAN NATION…A FUNDAMENTALIST MYTH

I was again today confronted with the notion that the Founding Fathers conceived the United States as a Christian Nation. Of course there’s nothing in the Constitution, nor the Federalist Papers, remotely linking Christianity to these United States. I was raised a Southern Baptist and still consider myself a Christian, and a true believer, although I don’t claim to be a Southern Baptist any longer. But, growing up, I was led to believe that Christianity and patriotism went hand in hand. This notion is, however, without any foundation outside the claim of evangelical fundamentalism.

Let’s start from the beginning…the United States Constitution, the First Amendment. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”…

Brooke Allen is the author of two collections of essays, Twentieth-Century Attitudes and Artistic License: Three Centuries of Good Writing and Bad Behavior. Allen recently wrote in “The Nation” magazine the following regarding the linkage (or lack thereof) of Christianity and the notion the United States was created to be identified as a “Christian Nation.”

“Our Constitution makes no mention whatever of God. The omission was too obvious to have been anything but deliberate, in spite of Alexander Hamilton's flippant responses when asked about it: According to one account, he said that the new nation was not in need of "foreign aid"; according to another, he simply said "we forgot." But as Hamilton's biographer Ron Chernow points out, Hamilton never forgot anything important.

In the eighty-five essays that make up The Federalist, God is mentioned only twice (both times by Madison, who uses the word in the "only Heaven knows" sense). In the Declaration of Independence, He gets two brief nods: a reference to "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God," and the famous line about men being "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." More blatant official references to a deity date from long after the founding period: "In God We Trust" did not appear on our coinage until the Civil War, and "under God" was introduced into the Pledge of Allegiance during the McCarthy hysteria in 1954 [see Elisabeth Sifton, "The Battle Over the Pledge," April 5, 2004].”

Even if you believe the reference is to GOD (as I do)…there is absolutely no reference to being a “Christian nation.” GOD…could be, God as I perceive God…or God, as a Muslim perceives of God…or any other religion. We are a pluralist religious country (which would include those that don’t believe in God at all)!

Allen goes on to note…”In 1797 our government concluded a "Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, or Barbary," now known simply as the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 of the treaty contains these words:
As the Government of the United States...is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility of Musselmen--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

This document was endorsed by Secretary of State Timothy Pickering and President John Adams. It was then sent to the Senate for ratification; the vote was unanimous. It is worth pointing out that although this was the 339th time a recorded vote had been required by the Senate, it was only the third unanimous vote in the Senate's history. There is no record of debate or dissent. The text of the treaty was printed in full in the Philadelphia Gazette and in two New York papers, but there were no screams of outrage, as one might expect today.

The Founding Fathers were not religious men, and they fought hard to erect, in Thomas Jefferson's words, "a wall of separation between church and state." John Adams opined that if they were not restrained by legal measures, Puritans--the fundamentalists of their day--would "whip and crop, and pillory and roast." The historical epoch had afforded these men ample opportunity to observe the corruption to which established priesthoods were liable, as well as "the impious presumption of legislators and rulers," as Jefferson wrote, "civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time."

Heavy stuff…don’t you think.

The Radical Right now asserts that among other abuses President Obama has committed against Man and God is that “we’re no longer a Christian Nation.” Well…WE NEVER WERE! Sure, he declined the invitation to the “National Prayer Breakfast” as if that is the defining of Christianity.

“By their fruits you shall know them.” Fruits…like love, compassion, providing for the “least” of these. This new evangelical fundamentalist brand of Christianity is known for loving war, complaining about providing “welfare” for the “least” in our society, neglecting “heath care” for those unable to afford it. But, I guess they are known for the “National Prayer Breakfast.”

If you’ve got to go to the “Prayer Breakfast” to be a good Christian…I’m wondering how many of my Christian brothers out there got their invitation.

BALANCE IS NOT FACT VS. FICTION

I miss Tim Russert. No one has come close to taking his place. I recently tried listening to George Stephanopoulos on ABC...but, George for the smart guy he should be lacks the honest reasoning that’s missing from news coverage we go in the 60’s and 70’s.

You would never hear intelligent reporters give credibility to any debate that pitted reason against flat out misrepresentation before the creation of Fox News. George Stephanopoulos made commentary on Fox News and MSNBC as “parallel universes” on the Sunday Show (September 20, 2009). There is no way you can label Fox for anything except what they are...involved in outright misrepresentation. When you have to listen to Sean Hannity remark on the President calling health insurance executives “bad people” when the President said just the opposite, you can’t call that anything but dishonest. The president said “insurance executives aren’t bad people...they’re just looking out after their profits.”

You can’t call these two networks parallel anything. MSNBC will correct their mistakes...Fox goes out of their way to make misrepresentations. Ed Shultz is passionate...but, accurate. Keith Oberman is entertaining...but, still accurate...and very quick to correct himself when he’s made an error, many times before the program is even over. Rachel Maddow is clearly the most intellectual program on any network.

Fox wouldn’t know the truth if is slapped them in the ass. But, yet we get George Stephanopoulos presenting them as just two extremes. They aren’t two extremes...just Fox is. There a difference in civil disagreements and carnival barkers who are out to mislead anyone dumb enough to buy facts that are so easy to confirm that intellectual laziness is the only explanation for buying their blather.

I’ve had enough with the real press giving a pass to the faux press.

DISPELLING “ACROSS STATE LINE COMPETITION”

The most prominent opposition to the reform of Healthcare is a theory that “if we just allowed competition across state lines the price of health insurance would decrease.” Really…that’s their plan. Just open competition up across state lines. Then…United Healthcare of Oklahoma can compete with United Healthcare of Arkansas for Texas healthcare business. They’ll be competing against themselves. And, you don’t have to have a Nobel Economic Prize to know that won’t bring down any cost. It will just disguise the ruse.

Think about this…you can buy gasoline across state lines. Does Shell Oil or Exxon sell gas cheaper in California than they do in Nevada, or in Oklahoma cheaper than they do in Texas? Of, course they don’t. It’s a stupid argument and someone should call them on it. If resident s of New York bought insurance in New Hampshire they’d pay premiums developed for residents of New York, not residents of New Hampshire.

The Public Option is the only proposal out there that will control cost. However, there is one other. Control Healthcare Insurers like public utilities are regulated. Make them conform to what they have to cover, who they have to cover, and how much they can charge. And, monitor the hell out of their denial of claims…with substantial penalties handed out for bogus denials. Given that option…I’ll bet they’ll opt for the public option too.

THE DESPAIR OF HEALTHCARE

Just imagine the despair of watching your loved ones, whether its husbands, wives, parents, or worst of all…children, suffer without hope of obtaining the aid of a doctor, nurse, or hospital. Imagine being employed in a low wage job…enough to escape poverty but, just above the line without a job that provides healthcare. Imagine having three small children. Imagine watching a young son suffer and not knowing why, all the time not having access to a doctor. Imagine as the degree of suffering slowly growing to the point of intolerance. Then, finally when the condition becomes dire you finally have to use the emergency room facility. Imagine as the doctor advises you that your son has bone cancer. But, by this time the condition is beyond treatment of any kind. Then, imagine as you find your daughter begins to mysteriously suffer. You see her suffer the same way your son suffered. You finally seek emergency room assistance and discover she has lung cancer, a cancer that demands radical, aggressive, chemotherapy and you still lack medical insurance to help with the treatment. Same as before, you’ve had to wait too late in the game to effectively have hope of saving this child. Imagine as you find out that the third child suffers from asthma. Again, you have no insurance to cover the prescriptions to alleviate the suffering. This child finally succumbs as the oxygen is literally choked out of him.
I suspect the potential for all this to occur might have been why Senator Ted Kennedy worked so relentlessly for national health care for all who call the United States home. This is exactly what happened to Ted Kennedy’s family…only Ted had the resources to provide health care for his family. So, the son lost a leg but, his life was saved. His daughter suffers the treatment of chemotherapy but, recovers. The youngest son lives with asthma…because he has access to the prescriptions that allow him to breathe freely.

Oh, the vitriol I’ve read on the internet from acquaintances I have that claim to be “good” God fearing Christians”…but, for the life of me I can’t put my finger on a single characteristic that would lead me to believe they followed Christian ethics. They certainly don’t have compassion. They would lead you to believe that Ted Kennedy was defined totally and completely with the incident identified simply as Chappaquiddick. Because of what clearly was a mistake by the Senator…they believe he has no path to redemption.

Well…the Christian instruction to “do to the least of these” because that is doing unto God is what all of us can do, regardless of our history. Redemption is for learning to do better. Maybe these fine Christians can look at the admonition of the New Testament once again. I wish they would…they’re becoming an embarrassment to those of us who think the “Kingdom” Jesus proclaimed was built on compassion, and treating the “least of these” with the kindness demonstrated in the New Testament.

“It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven” (from Matthew in the 10th Chapter). This passage from the New Testament doesn’t exactly lead you to believe taking care of the haves is purpose of Christianity.

PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE

A common argument among Republican Conservatives (con’s) is that the constitution does not provide for the creation of government interference in healthcare. I just recently heard one of those deep thinking con’s from Oklahoma who asked one of his constituents where she thought the U.S. Constitution said they government should provide healthcare for its citizens.

Well…Senator Colburn…you have to read really deep into the document, almost to the middle of the FIRST SENTENCE. Yes, after lengthy research of almost a full second…there it was…”PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE.”

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

But, I wasn’t satisfied…so, I continued to read. Then…there in Article I…it said it again…”PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE AND GENERAL WELFARE.”

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

So, that seems pretty compelling to me. The health of the citizens of the United States is certainly part of the general welfare. I grew up in Oklahoma…so, it’s just a bit more embarrassing to me when the likes of James Inholfe and Tom Colburn say such outrageously ignorant things like “where in the constitution does it say the government should provide national healthcare,” or “global warming a is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on man.”
Makes you wonder if those two have really ever read the constitution, doesn’t it?

EMPLOYMENT GOING FORWARD

The third and fourth quarter of 2009 looks to be where the United States will reach an unemployment percentage of 10% and possibly over 10%. Thus, the hand ringing begins. Granted, anytime an able and willing worker goes without a job the unemployment rate is too high. But, all this is certainly going to change in 2011 when the first wave of baby boomers begins to reach the age of 65,

You'll notice below that 76 million boomers (actually 75.8 million) were born between 1946 and 1964 (18 years). Most economists believe that an additional 5 million immigrants have been added to that population...consequently they usually speak of the baby boom population as being 80 million. Even though this source indicates they now represent 28% of the population it's a much larger share of the work force. Conventional thinking is that one-third of the workforce is made up of baby boomers.

The numbers I gave you mean an average of about 4.5 million will begin leaving the workforce beginning in 2011, or about 370,500 per month. Most economist believe the economy needs to produce about 150,000 per month (1.8 million per year) to keep up with the people entering the workforce. Obviously that's going to get easier when 370,000 people begin exiting the workforce each month. Although this would not be new jobs created…but, jobs replaced.

According to bbhq.com.

"For the years 1940-1994, inclusive, 202 million Americans were born; about 77% of all Americans now living were born after 1939. During the baby boomer years, 1946-1964 (inclusive), 75.8 million Americans were born. The ratio of males to females has stayed relatively constant. There were approximately 1.05 male births for every one female birth.

The biggest year of the boom was 1957, when 4.3 million boomers were born. Why it took over 10 years for so many post-World War II families to get going is a matter of speculation. For the 5-year period between 1956 and 1960, inclusive, 21.2 million boomers were born, nearly 1 1/2 times the number born between 1941 and 1945, and the largest for any 5-year period in the 20th century.

Boomers today represent 28% of the U.S. population. But in 1964, they represented about 40% of the population. In other words, in 1964 more than a third of the population was under 19 years old! No wonder the baby boomers attracted so much attention. "

Then, according to babyboomercaretaker.com

“Within a decade, a large percentage of baby boomers would be approaching their age of retirement, thereby raising a deep concern on the issue of depleting work force that can affect the national economy significantly. Baby boomers comprise of one-third of entire work force in the United States and there are not enough youngsters who have the necessary skill so as to be considered a replacement. This situation has forced many companies to change the method of recruitment, retention and work schedules.

Mature workforce is a privilege in this current era of competitiveness as these workers are considered to be reliable, efficient, compassionate and honest. An effect of aging employees is a phenomenon that is going to have a global impact during the next decade that can cause a significant threat to future growth and productivity.

Hence, the issue of aging workforce has forced companies to recognize and value the issues surrounding the mature workforce. Companies are rethinking their policies related to recruitment and employee retention. It has changed the entire definition of working patterns. Considering the requirement of aging workforce, employers are bringing in flexible working hours in the office. Preference for part time jobs, telecommuting and job sharing is constantly on a rise among baby boomers. These people are less interested in working for long hours.
Baby boomers have also influenced the concept of retirement. Many of them want to still continue working even after retirement so as meet basic financial needs and to be engaged in their related fields. Others want to balance work and leisure during retirement. There are certain other groups who are getting enrolled into colleges so as to pursue their schooling ambitions. Some companies have casual worker program where aging people are re-employed, while providing limited benefits. Educated and experienced baby boomers are also being recruited as consultants.”

This modification of the workforce will dramatically alter employment going forward for the next 18 years. The short fall of available workers is going to turn our current employment environment upside down. Where we have had more workers that jobs…we start in 2011 to have more jobs than workers, probably in the neighborhood of 50,000 to 100,000 jobs per month. That is exactly the opposite effect as there is today.

The corrections will require figuring out ways to keep the baby boomer at least partially engaged in the work market. It may mean those pesky immigrants, the right wingers constantly complain about, may become very important. I suspect shorter work weeks, job sharing, flexible working hours, and probably an idea or two which might not previously have been considered will be used to persuade baby boomers back into the workforce.

It will have some positive effects on the national budget deficit. Although, due to the reckless use of funds during the Bush years, lavishing tax cuts on the wealthy and pursuing a war of choice, government spending has been ballooning to portions that make our heads want to explode, going forward unemployment spending, and even educational spending should come under control. Keep in mind, spending on food stamps would also subside with full employment. And, the need for educational loans would also like decrease as employers take over the training of their workers, and jobs being plentiful will coax students out of school and into the workforce. All this coupled with the lessons learned from engaging in needless wars and the disengagement in Iraq and Afghanistan should lessen the annual deficit and help return to paying down the national debt.

It’s going to look a lot different. And the recognition of this new environment is why we should always be thinking long term. Just as I knew Alan Greenspan and George W. Bush were blowing smoke up our collective asses when the proclaimed at the beginning of Dubya’s term that record surpluses would cause a problem going forward, it’s plain to see that we need to be aware that going forward we’re going to have a much different landscape for the economy. There will be government spending alterations, and we need to consider them. It would have been nice for Alan and Dubya to have considered what will all those surpluses mean if we have a recession or find ourselves getting into a protracted and expensive war. Those tax cuts for all Dubya’s buddies might not have been so attractive…at least to the rest of us.

The country will need to get through this recession recognizing how much different this will look in a couple of years. Politician’s will need to recognize that pulling back from the stimulus might push us into the depression we avoided (just go back and revisit the Roosevelt mistakes of 1933 when he decided to reign in the spending and the country went right back into depression). Think long term. There will be a time to deal with the national debt…but, now is not the time to fight that battle. However, beginning in 2011 the time bring spending into balance and to pay down the debt may come again.

THE POLITE SOCIETY

How long do you expect it will be before “lefties” start showing up at public political events with guns strapped to their side? I think the common notion is that only those on the right own guns. That would be a big mistake. Those on the left own them too. They’re probably more open to gun control laws than those on the right…but, trust me…they have guns.

I love the goofy logic of the Ron Paul group that if everyone had a gun we’d be a more polite society. What in God’s name makes these righties think that big ego’s don’t trump “give everyone a gun and no one will get out of line.” A bully is a bully, pure and simple. Give a bully a gun, it doesn’t matter whether his political leaning are to the right or the left, sooner or later the bully is going to want to show us all exactly how tough he is. Is there anyone who thinks we’d be better off if everyone on a commercial airplane had a gun? Are you really dumb enough to think you’d be safer?

The recent gun toting protester at President Obama’s town hall meeting in New Hampshire bore a tee shirt with the famous Thomas Jefferson quote that “the tree of Liberty must periodically be watered with the blood of patriots.” It’s a catchy phrase…but, I think it’s time someone ask the question of “why must the tree be watered with blood?”

Let’s not forget this was the same quote adorned by Timothy McVeigh when he was arrested for the Oklahoma City Bombings. Let’s also remember some of the blood Mr. McVeigh was watering the tree of Liberty with was that of CHILDREN who were attending day school in the Murray Building.

This country has tried the gun culture that was supposed to create the “polite society” referred to by Congressman Paul. It was called the “WILD WEST.” It really didn’t work out that well.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m resolved that the constitution provides for the “right to bear arms.” If anyone believes they need a gun to protect themselves I believe they have the “right” to own a gun. But, I don’t think that means without any control. I mean…we don’t have the right to bear “nuclear arms” now do we? And, I think that in order to prevent an unruly crowd (say like we’ve seen at some of the recent health care town hall protest) we might exercise some self-governing and say that a crowd of right and left wing zealots is more likely to insight gun-play than discourage it.

Given this country’s history with political assassination…Lincoln, the Kennedy brothers, Dr. King, not to mention those that were just shot at…Regan, Ford, George Wallace (you do recognize that those last three names were conservatives, which only proves my point that it’s not only the right that should be feared). It’s just plainly not a good idea to have gun toting protesters clearly in sight around political gatherings where the country’s first African-American President is in attendance. In fact, it’s probably not worth the risk where a Senator or Congressman are in attendance either.

Let’s keep those weapons in places that we might need them for defensive purposes and not offensive aggression.